View Full Version : Global Warming
Just want to hear peoples view on our dying planet... and having to pay for it all, renewable fuels, all that stuff.....
Discuss :D
furrybean
31-10-06, 12:53 PM
My thinking is that we need to be responsible for our carbon footprint yadda yadaa but it isnt fair to tax the hell out of us when the other big economies like the US China and Russia are far worse offenders without any or little comeback.
Heard a statistic the other day that China has a coal powered power station come online every 7 - 10 day and each one is much more pooluting than Drax. Scarey stuff!!!! If you look at Sweden and other Scandanavian countries and their attitude to energy effieciency I think we should go down that road and use new technologies to improve the amount of energy used, with triple glazing compulsory on new builds etc.
Warthog
31-10-06, 03:54 PM
I was listening to Radio 4 yesterday and they had a Professor emeritus of Virginia University Environment studies and he was saying that global warming is actually good. We all know that the earth cycles in temperature, and that during the medieval times you could grow vines in yorkshire and that crops actually started failing when it strated going colder again! Interesting point of view I thought.
Read 'State of Fear' by Chriton (sp?). Have to check out his references, but it's an interesting read I must admit.
As for global warming - I'm on the fence. I try to be energy efficient - as much from the what do we do when the petrol pumps run dry as anything else, and also why not use as much wind / wave power as possible...
timwilky
31-10-06, 03:58 PM
My thinking is that we need to be responsible for our carbon footprint yadda yadaa but it isnt fair to tax the hell out of us when the other big economies like the US China and Russia are far worse offenders without any or little comeback.
Heard a statistic the other day that China has a coal powered power station come online every 7 - 10 day and each one is much more pooluting than Drax. Scarey stuff!!!! If you look at Sweden and other Scandanavian countries and their attitude to energy effieciency I think we should go down that road and use new technologies to improve the amount of energy used, with triple glazing compulsory on new builds etc.
Considering I work for the company that has provided over 25% of the worlds installed base, and have personally worked on a number of power plants in China. I would like to defend our record.
We treat pollution seriously and have developed a number of technologies to reduce Nox and sulphur emissions. We design to the same high standards irrespective of location and have entered into a number of technology transfer agreement with Chinese companies to enable them to produce energy as cleanly as practical. New more efficient cleaner power plant should be encouraged. Scare mongering unsubstantiated allegations that certain countries are installing dirty power plants are simply not true.
I have also worked on 2 nuclear plants in China, at Daya Bay and Ling Ao in Guang Dong province, the design and controls are of european design. would you seriously want to encourage the Chinese authorities to develop home grown nuclear plant as a "Cleaner" alternative.
China is also building huge hydroelectric solutions at the 3 gorges project. Not only will it provide a huge amount of electricity and finally control the Yangtze river. but typical environmentalists they then condemn this clean energy project.
China is also building huge hydroelectric solutions at the 3 gorges project. Not only will it provide a huge amount of electricity and finally control the Yangtze river. but typical environmentalists they then condemn this clean energy project.
Whilst I can understand some of their concerns (same as damning any river), I must admit I love when people start being green and the extremist tree huggers then start to complain about the green alternative *they* (for the most part before I get flamed :) ) wanted in the first place.
There are a lot of environmentalists complaining about wind power and tidal power in Holland complaining about noise, damaging the view, slicing and dicing birds, and electrocuting fish when out in the open sea.
Just what power source are we allowed to use?
furrybean
31-10-06, 04:19 PM
Considering I work for the company that has provided over 25% of the worlds installed base, and have personally worked on a number of power plants in China. I would like to defend our record.
We treat pollution seriously and have developed a number of technologies to reduce Nox and sulphur emissions. We design to the same high standards irrespective of location and have entered into a number of technology transfer agreement with Chinese companies to enable them to produce energy as cleanly as practical. New more efficient cleaner power plant should be encouraged. Scare mongering unsubstantiated allegations that certain countries are installing dirty power plants are simply not true.
I have also worked on 2 nuclear plants in China, at Daya Bay and Ling Ao in Guang Dong province, the design and controls are of european design. would you seriously want to encourage the Chinese authorities to develop home grown nuclear plant as a "Cleaner" alternative.
China is also building huge hydroelectric solutions at the 3 gorges project. Not only will it provide a huge amount of electricity and finally control the Yangtze river. but typical environmentalists they then condemn this clean energy project.
This comes across as very hypocritical as I work in the Lime Industry which is one of the heaviest producers of CO2 but we monitor our dust particle, SOX and NOX emissions very carefully. Speaking to an engineer from ABB who do the emissions monitoring he gave an example of coming back from South American plants where they arent so stringent. We monitor dust to 40ppm. When he was in S. America they didnt take any notice unless the emissions rose above 4000 and they aren't have to take any action at that level either.
I was also reading about the emphasis on environmental factors in China was strong in the major districts like Shang hai but once you ventured out into the provinces all the emphasis was on rapid growth and industrialization and bonuses werent exactly paid out for cleaner option
Mr Toad
31-10-06, 04:22 PM
We're ****ed :cry:
Nothing we do as the UK will make any difference - we account for under 2% of the global CO2 output, so banning cars or whatever isn't going to make any difference. If we completely shut down our entire economy and produced no greenhouse gases, the Chinese would make up the difference in 13 months :shock:
Yep, their economy, and with that the production of greenhouse gases, is growing at the rate of our entire output approx every year.
So anything we do is going to have no effect - but watch out for lots of 'consumption' based taxes coming our way - we already have some of the most expensive petrol prices in the world (how much does Uncle Sam pay for a gallon ?), congestion charges in central London (soon to be expanded), congestion charges coming for the M25, airport taxes, etc, etc. What will all these tax receipts be used for - I doubt Mr Blair is going to reduce the overall tax burden, so these extra measures will be used as a stick to beat us naughty consumers :evil:
It would only work if the entire world adopts the same measures, and there is fat chance of that happening
Still, look on the bright side - at least we'll have some good riding weather for a few years :D
philipMac
31-10-06, 04:28 PM
Still, look on the bright side - at least we'll have some good riding weather for a few years :D
Have you got a waterproof bike that floats? :wink:
Nah. I think... I think that it is almost impossible to know what is going to happen.
Too many variables.
For instance, if you get enough iron into the pacific, you will get a massive algal bloom. This will grab tons of CO2, and then sink.
If you can get the iron...
I would lean towards your first point though. Ie, We're Fooked. In a big way. Honestly... I am not even sure if that's a bad thing. Humans are *******s.
Bedtime my friends.
furrybean
31-10-06, 04:30 PM
We're f*cked :cry:
Nothing we do as the UK will make any difference - we account for under 2% of the global CO2 output, so banning cars or whatever isn't going to make any difference. If we completely shut down our entire economy and produced no greenhouse gases, the Chinese would make up the difference in 13 months :shock:
Yep, their economy, and with that the production of greenhouse gases, is growing at the rate of our entire output approx every year.
So anything we do is going to have no effect - but watch out for lots of 'consumption' based taxes coming our way - we already have some of the most expensive petrol prices in the world (how much does Uncle Sam pay for a gallon ?), congestion charges in central London (soon to be expanded), congestion charges coming for the M25, airport taxes, etc, etc. What will all these tax receipts be used for - I doubt Mr Blair is going to reduce the overall tax burden, so these extra measures will be used as a stick to beat us naughty consumers :evil:
It would only work if the entire world adopts the same measures, and there is fat chance of that happening
Still, look on the bright side - at least we'll have some good riding weather for a few years :D
Well said, If good ol' Tone tried to push the Kyoto agreement etc to the counties that need to curb their output instead of taxing us even more heavily than we do at the moment. I'm not anti the developing countries getting their chance at boosting their economies but they must do it in a conscientious manner to the environment
timwilky
31-10-06, 04:30 PM
The last time I was in Beijing a few years ago, the pollution was so bad that you could taste it. I hope it has improved there.
If anything I would suggest China these days pays more attention to environmental concerns than in many other asia pasific countries. Yes they are very good at wholesale destruction of the environment where they try. but usually because of a "Greater" plan. However power plant tends to be commisioned by quasi goverment bodies and the environmental requirements are written into the ITTs.
Contrast this against other countries where power plants tend to be commissioned by investment partners and cost of ownership/operation tend to be more important than environmental impact. Of course there are many countries that put down very strick environmetal requirements on new build projects. ie Taiwan. The problem being in Asia Pasific. Countries are learning from the mistakes of the past. You then contrast this with the states. California had for many year failed to invest in power and got bitten. They now have a govenor who listens to the environmentalists and wants controls on clean power and efficiency etc. Pity the federal goverment isn't listening.
Interesting points so far folks. Personally I think the biggest challenge ahead is producing an alternative fuel for cars/aircraft/marine etc. These are the basis in which the world moves.
The effects are irriversable. Its now up to the big guns to come up with managable ways to produce and maintain cleaner fuels.
We were also talking in work today about the seasons shifting more and more. I remember when I was a kid winter was well and truly here by November. By that I mean it was already touching zero in temperature and snow was likely in places. Now its 15/16 outside during the day....
Relax guy, oneday you'll be able to sit on a beach in Scotland with temperature in the upper 30s.
All thanks to folks flying so much to get a tan in warm places!
Relax guy, oneday you'll be able to sit on a beach in Scotland with temperature in the upper 30s.
All thanks to folks flying so much to get a tan in warm places!
Yes, I can image catching the rays up the in the shetlands in mid-December.....
furrybean
31-10-06, 04:37 PM
There is also the thinking that with an increase in temperature the gulf stream will shift and so we will have the same kind of temps as Labrador in Canada. Best buy shares in Scarves
philipMac
31-10-06, 04:40 PM
Temperature will be the least of your worries if the whole kip is 4 feet under the sea lads.
Icecap's melting innit.
Furry is dead right though. The gulf stream is a fickle mistress.
My view is in my sig....... :wink:
furrybean
31-10-06, 04:41 PM
:smt019 I live at the top of a big hill!
philipMac
31-10-06, 04:43 PM
:smt019 I live at the top of a big hill!
You are all set mate. I just bought a gaff on top of a cliff. BRING IT BIOTCH.
http://www.makoinflatables.com/4.4m%20Commerical%20boat.jpg
furrybean
31-10-06, 04:56 PM
So my house will be worth more with a sea view? I'm gonna turn my heating up and my bike ticking over... It will make me money!
I'm not persuaded on global warming. As people have said, climate change is cyclical. We had ice ages and warm ages without anyone producing much CO2. And what about natural volcanic eruptions that spew huge amounts of sulphur and carbon into the atmosphere. Perhaps we'll tax the Italians for having Etna.
And I'm fed up with talk about taxes to 'combat global warming'. Again, others have made the point that other countries produce far more pollution than we do, so how is 2 or 3p on a litre of unleaded here going to reduce the problem to any material extent? It's all hot air, unproven, and yet another excuse for tax increases.
And we're off to the bike show tomoz in Daryl's car - I'll ask him to drive at 40 to respect the environment, just like I ride at 40 for similar reasons :lol:
ArtyLady
31-10-06, 05:33 PM
Im ancient so I'll probably dead and gone when it all goes tits up :wink: but I am worried for my kids and grandkids :(
Biker Biggles
31-10-06, 05:48 PM
I'm not entirely convinced either,but I'm willing to accept a common sense scenario that says that an ever increasing Human race using ever more resources and dumping ever more waste is not a sustainable option.Given that we are not at all amenable to having a lower standard of living imposed and that those who are poorer want to get richer we are in a bit of a problem.Being more efficient,new technology and recycling all have a part to play,but seem to be just tinkering at the edges when you consider a couple of billion people in the "third world"are clamoring for their bit of the action,and who can blame them.Traditionally we have met this demand by continued economic growth,but that will just multiply the problem.
I don't know the answer,but common sense suggests that human population growth is the root problem,so just possibly the Chinese have hit upon the solution with their much derided one child per family policy.My arithmetic is not great but over a generation or two surely that would halve the population,leaving sufficient resources and more sustainable emissions for Mankind in future years.This nettle will need grasping sometime,and the sooner we start the less painful it will be.
furrybean
31-10-06, 06:04 PM
But one child per family means an older population which is an economic strain....
I have it from an excellent well informed source (one of the top Geologists in the world) that Climate Change has very little to do with what us humans do. Our output is marginal in comparison to what the world itself produces. Climate change is cyclical. The worlds polarity is a large factor in climate change. At the moment our polarity is overdue to switch. I believe it switches every 600000 or so and the last produced an ice age. This is monitored in the sea beds beneath the Atlantic. If i remember rightly, we are about 25000 years overdue.
I havent done geology for a couple of years so im a bit rusty and someone may correct me, but if you ask me, its a smokescreen and propaganda for the government to collect more money to heommorage on Iraq & Afghanistan
philipMac
31-10-06, 06:17 PM
I have it from an excellent well informed source (one of the top Geologists in the world) that Climate Change has very little to do with what us humans do.
I had lunch with a Nobel prize winning scientist, and he doesn't believe God exists.
So, I suppose that's that one cleared up too then.
I dont think the issue of religion can be included in Science.
However Geology and Climate Change are very much in the same field ;)
Biker Biggles
31-10-06, 06:23 PM
The economic strain is very true,but we will also have to change our economic system drastically since it relies on constant growth at present which is unsustainable.We would need a shrinking economy in line with a shrinking population,and some major changes in working patterns to reflect the demographic changes.Quite beyond our ability I'm sure,but as for the alternative--- :?:
philipMac
31-10-06, 06:27 PM
I dont think the issue of religion can be included in Science.
However Geology and Climate Change are very much in the same field ;)
Hmph. I'd like to see you tell that to Tom Cruise.
I have it from an excellent well informed source (one of the top Geologists in the world) that Climate Change has very little to do with what us humans do. Our output is marginal in comparison to what the world itself produces. Climate change is cyclical. The worlds polarity is a large factor in climate change. At the moment our polarity is overdue to switch. I believe it switches every 600000 or so and the last produced an ice age. This is monitored in the sea beds beneath the Atlantic. If i remember rightly, we are about 25000 years overdue.
I havent done geology for a couple of years so im a bit rusty and someone may correct me, but if you ask me, its a smokescreen and propaganda for the government to collect more money to heommorage on Iraq & Afghanistan
Entirely agree :thumbsup:
philipMac
31-10-06, 07:26 PM
Regardless of what your mate does or doesnt think, its at least possible, some would say probable, that he is wrong.
If he is wrong, and important people pay attention to him, then boy wouldn't we be left with egg on our faces. If he is right we have cleaner air. Not the end of the world.
You have to balance the cost of trying to alleviate risk with the cost of ignoring risk.
The cost of ignoring this risk is pretty huge. And some clever people, who know more about it than most, think its real. Some of these people have no affiliation with governments.
They are scientists. And, from what I have seen, scientists are the most painfully conservative, desperately honest, pedantic people on the planet.
They dont like being wrong. They try very hard to make sure what they say is true before they say it.
Governments would love to ignore this. Ignorance is free. But, then along comes say... Katrina, and kills everyone. And, tons of dead people all over the shop is tricky to explain.
global warming my ****. Anyone any idea how cold it was waiting for the bus this evening? :P :lol:
Though I'll talk about global warming in a few weeks time when Im walking to work in -25 degrees. Dont think the Siberians have got the message the worlds warming up or anyone else who are in the path of the Siberian winds in winter :P :lol:
philipMac
31-10-06, 08:18 PM
I fail to see how your posterior enters into our intellectual ramblings lyn.
A bit of decorum if you don't mind.
northwind
31-10-06, 08:19 PM
Relax guy, oneday you'll be able to sit on a beach in Scotland with temperature in the upper 30s.
This is true- Scotland has a fair supply of elevated beaches which will remain servicable even with a 3 metre water level rise. Though since the gulfstream would most likely shift due to changes in sea temperature, most of scotland would be colder than before.
It's definately true that natural effects have a greater impact than we do. Doesn't mean ours is irrelevant.
Relax guy, oneday you'll be able to sit on a beach in Scotland with temperature in the upper 30s.
It's definately true that natural effects have a greater impact than we do. Doesn't mean ours is irrelevant.
A most sensible comment Northy. The question is to what extent do human actions contribute.
I am not persuaded, not even by Philip's claim that scientists are clever dispassionate people. And Philip, do you have any proof that Katrina or indeed any other hurricane was caused by climate change? You appear to link them.
Little known climate fact:
Australia emits 30 per cent more greenhouse gases per capita than the United States.
Each year Ireland generates 869kg of waste per head, 25 per cent more than Denmark, its nearest EU rival. Britain's figure is 600kg. [The Economist, 2nd September 2006]
Little known climate fact:
Australia emits 30 per cent more greenhouse gases per capita than the United States.
Each year Ireland generates 869kg of waste per head, 25 per cent more than Denmark, its nearest EU rival. Britain's figure is 600kg. [The Economist, 2nd September 2006]
See, it's not us, it's everyone else :wink:
I spend my spare time writing letters to the local rag about Shrewsbury & Atcham Borough Council's recycling efforts. It's a joke, we have green waste and cardboard in the summer every other Monday, glass bottles and paper every other Thursday all year round. RThey collect at 7am so if you forget to put it out the night before, tough. You have to take plastic bottles (not the topses, mind - WHY?????) to the recycling facility.
Not surprising that so many people don't bother.
I fail to see how 60 million people in a world of 6.5 billion will make a concerted difference to the Climate Change. 1% of the worlds population and thats only if everyone in Britain took heed and did something about it. Its the Americans who need to do something about it. We are being penalised for our 1600cc engines over here whilst the US run around in their 4litre guzzlers refusing to sign any agreements on the environment.
"New" Labour modelled themselves on centre ground politics. Their fascination with robbing the rich to pay for the poor is typically leftwing. They want us all to travel on public transport and be rationed for food.
It really p*sses me off to work so hard for the money I earn only to see those sit on the other fence to me reap the rewards through benefits, and im not talking about the unemployed with a genuine desire to work.
philipMac
31-10-06, 10:08 PM
Relax guy, oneday you'll be able to sit on a beach in Scotland with temperature in the upper 30s.
It's definately true that natural effects have a greater impact than we do. Doesn't mean ours is irrelevant.
A most sensible comment Northy. The question is to what extent do human actions contribute.
I am not persuaded, not even by Philip's claim that scientists are clever dispassionate people. And Philip, do you have any proof that Katrina or indeed any other hurricane was caused by climate change? You appear to link them.
No. Sorry... I didnt mean to imply that Katrina was linked to human activity. What I was trying to say was (certain) governments feel that it is acceptable to throw the dice when it comes to pre-emptively combating problems that may be coming.
At the time the govt here felt that the risk of ignoring the chance of Katrina was worth the few million they saved.
It turned out to be a bad gamble. (Sadly.)
They are rolling the dice again on this issue.
Scientists are not necessarily dispassionate, they generally seem clever though. They are phenomenally careful about what they say. If you bork badly, it can be the end of things for you.
The media on the other hand is not careful about how they report what they say.
This is a problem.
According to the radio tonight global warming might reduce the thickness of the ice at the South Pole thus making it easier to extract fossil fuels from the region.
chris
northwind
01-11-06, 12:41 AM
Result!
They are scientists. And, from what I have seen, scientists are the most painfully conservative, desperately honest, pedantic people on the planet.
They dont like being wrong. They try very hard to make sure what they say is true before they say it.
They are also incredibly passionate about their chosen field... and I for one am always wary about passionate people in this respect.
It is rare for a scientist to search for the pure truth of a matter - by the very nature of their research they are seeking to prove (or disprove) something they believe. It breeds narrow mindedness and a blinkered vision.
Combine passion with belief, regardless of level of intelligence, and you do not get truth; you get a strong desire to find proof for what they believe to be true.
I'm not saying they are either right or wrong, just advocating an open mind I guess. :?
I spend my spare time writing letters to the local rag about Shrewsbury & Atcham Borough Council's recycling efforts. It's a joke, we have green waste and cardboard in the summer every other Monday, glass bottles and paper every other Thursday all year round. RThey collect at 7am so if you forget to put it out the night before, tough. You have to take plastic bottles (not the topses, mind - WHY?????) to the recycling facility.
Tell me about it. Here in Southampton, we followed neighbour eastleigh's policy of collecting normal waste and recyclables alternate weeks. People complained that they filled more than a wheely-bin with non-recyclable rubbish every 2 weeks, and that food waste was attracting rodents when left for 2 weeks, so now the collect rubbish every week, and alternate weeks a second dustcart follows the first one round, and takes recyclables. I make that a 50% increase in emmisions from dustcarts, just because people are too damn lazy to wrap food waste and sort the recyclables from the rest. (we dont even have to sort it, card, plastic bottles, tins, paper, can all go in the same bin.) ](*,)
timwilky
01-11-06, 07:37 PM
I spend my spare time writing letters to the local rag about Shrewsbury & Atcham Borough Council's recycling efforts. It's a joke, we have green waste and cardboard in the summer every other Monday, glass bottles and paper every other Thursday all year round. RThey collect at 7am so if you forget to put it out the night before, tough. You have to take plastic bottles (not the topses, mind - WHY?????) to the recycling facility.
Tell me about it. Here in Southampton, we followed neighbour eastleigh's policy of collecting normal waste and recyclables alternate weeks. People complained that they filled more than a wheely-bin with non-recyclable rubbish every 2 weeks, and that food waste was attracting rodents when left for 2 weeks, so now the collect rubbish every week, and alternate weeks a second dustcart follows the first one round, and takes recyclables. I make that a 50% increase in emmisions from dustcarts, just because people are too damn lazy to wrap food waste and sort the recyclables from the rest. (we dont even have to sort it, card, plastic bottles, tins, paper, can all go in the same bin.) ](*,)
My local council has a good record on recycling, they collect compostable waste in a brown wheely bin, glass bottles, plastic bottles of all types, cardboard, newspaper, food & drink cans and now clothing and shoes on one week and non recycleable waste the next. They listened when 1000s complained that open canvas bags for collecting bottles/cans in blew away and emptied in the road and replaced them with sacks that were weighted and had velcro closure. They eventually supplied lids for the waste paper boxes to stop that blowing away. The only part they won't listen to is the demand for a return to a weekly refuse service. They will not empty over flowing bins and I have twice demanded a visit from their recycling adviser in order to tell me how to reduce my fortnighly waste. The response was eventually to supply a large wheely bin as they accepted 6 adults and a baby would generate more than the average ammount of non recyclable waste. one comment that was totally unhelpful was to suggest we did not use disposable nappies. Now if we could also recycle tetrapack cartons.
I think suggested increased taxation of non green transport, energy use etc is unfair on those who cannot afford to replace existing vehicles heating systems etc. Road pricing is un fair on those of us who do not have access to usable public transport. Why unfairly penalise the population of the uk and force us to be further uneconomic against the far east and US
Relax guy, when things look dark and mankind's future is threatened.
I go to the wisest man I know of... George Carlin
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2kOCv-yfhTc
furrybean
01-11-06, 07:53 PM
If their attitude was 100% environmental then perhaps they would view these new taxes as a potential to provide grants to convert old inefficient systems with more modern efficient technologies, and not another income for the government. In a few years I'm looking at doing a barn conversion on my brothers farm and installing geo-thermic heating but the grants available are pathetic covering about 5% of the cost. Hardly worth bothering
Some interesting reading:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/6115644.stm
Some interesting reading:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/6115644.stm
A rare dose of sanity =D>
philipMac
04-11-06, 06:40 PM
The media on the other hand is not careful about how they report what they say.
This is a problem.
Lyn's article was written by a scientist, rather than a journo. He seems measured in his tone and careful about what he says, and has issues with the way that the media are using hyperbole when they talk about climate.
He does say that "Climate change is a reality, and science confirms that human activities are heavily implicated in this change."
He doesnt like the use of words like catastrophic, chaos to describe the climate. because, "scenarios of climate change are significant enough without invoking catastrophe and chaos".
So he is saying that humans changed the climate, and that the results of this change are probably going to be serious. He is saying that Humans must do something to try to deal with these very real issues. And that d!ckhead journos should shut up, and report the facts.
He is not saying that everything is going to work out, or be ok. Nor does he say that the outcomes of the change are not going to be catastrophic for some people.
You have to be careful to not confuse his calm tone with the seriousness of what he is actually saying.
Relax guy, when things look dark and mankind's future is threatened.
I go to the wisest man I know of... George Carlin
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2kOCv-yfhTc
Hmmm I preferred his earlier Wyld Stallions influenced philosophy
vBulletin® , Copyright ©2000-2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.